Karnail Singh Vs Union of India through Its Secretary… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Karnail Singh Vs Union of India through Its Secretary… — Income Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024) — i.e., on the same terms as those allowed petitions, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2020-2021 (and the consequential proceedings) was vitiated because the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, in view of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 vesting exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC; and whether the writ petition is covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh.

Court's answer

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petitions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh on the same issue as raised in the present writ petition, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised; the present petition therefore stands on the same footing.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024, and Jasjit Singh's case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court, CWP-7857-2025 (O&M), decided 21.03.2025 (bench: Arun Palli and Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.; judgment authored by Sudeepti Sharma, J.). Karnail Singh, the petitioner, challenged a notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential proceedings for AY 2020-2021, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction, the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 having specifically vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices in the NFAC. Counsel contended the issue was covered by Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (CWP No. 15745-2024, decided 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh (CWP No. 21509-2023, decided 29.07.2024), and counsel for the Union of India did not dispute this. Those Co-ordinate Bench petitions had been allowed on the same issue, with liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. The Court accordingly disposed of the present writ petition in terms of both judgments and disposed of all pending applications.

CWP-7857-2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

116

CWP-7857-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-21.03.2025

Karnail Singh

....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & ors.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Sourabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2020-2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others , passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024 .

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7857-2025

2

whole records of the case.

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 27.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2020-2021, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s

case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and

Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024

All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE

21.03.2025 Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Gaurav Arora 2025.03.25 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document